KulliRaivo
It creates a sync conflict file, so the data is there but the two differing versions aren’t automatically resolved.
One way out of this is to either have it on a server that’s always connected (less common) or to just have it on your phone. That way you have an intermediary that syncs the changes.
I meant the original topic of this discussion about non-liberal movements. Why you and Wikipedia consider MAGA (Trumpism) differently is, yeah that’s a discussion for some other day. The original topic is cleared up
I think you and Wikipedia disagree here. But that’s neither here nor there really. By their counting, there’s plenty of non-liberals who would fit the meme. In your view there aren’t. So that explains the difference.
I mean the whole point of bringing up Wikipedia was to show a common definition and what sort of movements are counted. If you use wider Marxist definition it covers a lot more, from what I’ve understood. The common Wikipedia counting doesn’t cover as much, so it leaves out some pretty popular movements, in which case the meme just mentioning liberals doesn’t make as much sense. But this being on .ml I think using the Marxist definition makes sense
I’m not sure it counts at Wikipedia, with how they describe it (they call it “Trumpism”)
comprises ideologies such as right-wing populism, right-wing antiglobalism, national conservatism and neo-nationalism, and features significant illiberal, authoritarian[7][8] and at times autocratic beliefs.[b] Trumpists and Trumpians are terms that refer to individuals exhibiting its characteristics. There is significant academic debate over the prevalence of neo-fascist[a] elements of Trumpism.
I mean I’m not sure if Wikipedia actually counts MAGA part of the party as liberals. I don’t think it does. That’s more along the lines of movements I was talking about. European alt-right the same deal.
But if you’re working from a specifically Marxist viewpoint I’m guessing it uses a broader definition that includes those movements.
Sure and it could be a salient point if it left out a few. It does tell you something when none of the parties in those movements are included though. Even in the articles for those particular ideologies you don’t see the claim that they’re subsets of liberalism, but a few mentions how they’re trying to counter liberal values.
I don’t think it’s an accidental omission.
In that it doesn’t count those movements as part of liberalism or those parties under that umbrella. It’s the reason I posted those lists above.
It just doesn’t seem like the sort of Wikipedia definition and the common interpretation I usually encounter agree with you on this one since the mentioned movements aren’t counted. But of course it’s not one interpretation to rule them all, just using Wikipedia as representative of the common viewpoint.
Wikipedia itself (and fwiw commonly others don’t either in my experience) doesn’t the talked about movements and parties as fitting under that umbrella, since they’re conflicting with too much of the basic defining principles. Imo that makes sense, but if you were to use a broader definition or going “if it fits even one part then it counts”, then I guess I could see them fitting under it.
Idk the Wikipedia definition that I commonly see people use doesn’t seem to agree with that. If you throw in fascism, alt-right, all of that under liberalism then the meme of course covers more ground but it can get more confusing to those not using the same definition of liberalism as you seem to use.
I’m using basically what’s
here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_parties_by_country
And the subsets too get a wider view
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_liberalism#Parties_and_organisations
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_liberalism#Classical_liberal_parties_worldwide
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservative_liberalism
Etc.
Their definitions don’t include the parties I was thinking about, that are doing the “alt-right” wave right now for example. So for that reason I think we’re working from different definitions.
I think you’re using a much wider definition for liberalism than is common or at least what I’m familiar with. And it’s a big tent to begin with. Many of those movements are against most of what are typically considered core values of liberalism, so that’s why they’re often not included, as a subsection or otherwise.
Most authoritarian conservative right-wing movements gaining popularity right now are far away from the values that make up liberalism. There’s no shortage of those. In Europe they’re likely going to sweep most of the continent, if the recent polls hold true.
Well that’s certainly a take. But I’m not talking about just monarchists, lots of other groups than monarchists that don’t subscribe to ideas of liberalism. It’s just not capitalism = liberalism.
And the point was just that this is directed at liberals for some reason when it could be directed at all the groups that do the same thing. That’s all.
There’s all kinds of authoritarian ideologies that are incompatible with liberalism. Not unfortunately that uncommon, especially nowadays that that shit has had a resurgence
I just meant that “liberal” doesn’t cover all the people who would hold the sentiment pictured in the meme. A lot of ardent anti-communists are also against liberalism and can’t be really described as liberal imo.
Monarchists, far right people etc. would probably react the same. Maybe discounting people on the right who are anti-capitalist but I’m not sure how large of a group that is
I wonder if it would be fairer to count all of them from both sides or have some more selective metric, though that cab be pretty hard to create
The blog post seems very readable to me